Beliefs about arguing as predictors of trait argumentativeness: Implications for training in argument and conflict management

Rancer, Andrew S.; Kosberg, Roberta L.; Baukus, Robert A.

doi:10.1080/03634529209378899

Cited by 59 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As such, argumentativeness is the most socially acceptable way of managing disagreement [24] [25]. Argumentative people perceive arguments as an exciting intellectual challenge and are seen as more credible, eloquent, creative and self-assured [21] [26]. Argumentativeness is positively related to students' outcomes such as affective learning, state motivation, interpersonal attraction and satisfaction [21] [27]- [33].…”

Section: Argumentativenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Instructor Argumentativeness and Socio-Communicative Style and Student Discipline: Using Physical Education Students’ Class as an Illustration

Bekiari¹,

Pylarinou²

2017

JSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study were examined associations among physical education instructors' argumentativeness and socio-communicative styles perceived by students and students' reasons for discipline. The sample consisted of 252 students (111 males, 141 females) aged 10 -12 years old (M = 11.4, SD = 0.79) from primary schools of public primary schools who completed three types of questionnaires during physical education classes. The results supported the internal consistency of the instruments. According to the results of the study, statistically significant differences were observed in perceived instructors' argumentativeness and assertiveness between the two classes of the students. Correlational analysis indicated that perceived instructors' argumentativeness was positively related to responsiveness, intrinsic reasons, self-responsibility reasons and caring reasons for discipline. Significant negative correlations were noted for instructors' argumentativeness with assertiveness, external reasons, introjected reasons and no reasons for discipline. The results of regression analysis revealed that perceived instructors' argumentativeness could significantly predict the variables of responsiveness, assertiveness, external reasons, introjected reasons, intrinsic reasons and self-responsibility reasons for discipline.

show abstract

Section: Argumentativenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Instructor Argumentativeness and Socio-Communicative Style and Student Discipline: Using Physical Education Students’ Class as an Illustration

Bekiari¹,

Pylarinou²

2017

JSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Argumentative individuals are confident in their arguing ability, enjoy engaging in arguments, are more motivated to argue, and view an argument as a learning experience (Infante & Rancer, 1993;Rancer, Baukus, & Infante, 1985;Rancer, Kosberg, & Baukus, 1992). From such practice, argumentative individuals learn to refrain from attacking others' self-concepts and are projected to be more persuasive (Infante & Rancer, 1982).…”

Section: Student Compliance-gaining and Individual Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Because verbal aggressiveness is correlated negatively with both cognitive flexibility and communication flexibility whereas argumentativeness is correlated positively with both cognitive flexibility and communication flexibility (Martin, Anderson, & Thweatt, 1998), it is possible that verbally aggressive and argumentative students will differ in their likelihood to use prosocial, antisocial, and neutral BATs with their instructors. Additionally, because verbally aggressive individuals are less likely to engage in praise (Wigley, Pohl, & Watt, 1989); are less open, more defensive, and tend not to acknowledge their own mistakes (Rancer et al, 1992); and are less responsive , verbally aggressive students may be more inclined to use antisocial or neutral BATs with their instructors than argumentative students. Argumentative individuals, conversely, are assertive and willing to participate in a decision-making situation (Anderson, Martin, & Infante, 1998), which suggests that argumentative students may be more likely to use prosocial BATs with an instructor than verbally aggressive students.…”

Section: Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

College Students’ Use of Behavioral Alteration Techniques as a Function of Aggressive Communication

Kennedy-Lightsey¹,

Myers

2009

Communication Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the associations between students' self-reported verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness and their perceptions of student BATs (Golish, 1999) as appropriate and effective as well as how likely they were to use each BAT. Participants were 187 undergraduate students enrolled in communication courses at a large MidAtlantic university. Students' verbal aggressiveness appears to influence their perceptions of BATs use as appropriate (6 of the 19 possible associations were significant) and effective (5 of the 19 possible associations were significant). Fewer associations found between students' argumentativeness and perceptions of BATs use as effective (1 of the 19 possible) indicate argumentativeness exerts less influence on students' perceptions. Together, students' verbal aggressiveness and perceptions of BATs use as appropriate and effective were significant predictors of students' likelihood to use prosocial and antisocial BATs. Student argumentativeness did not contribute to students' BATs use.

show abstract

“…Argumentativeness is modestly Commitment in Argumentation 41 related to a wide range of proclivities and behaviors regarding argument. Individuals with high approach scores (and lower avoidance scores) on the Infante scale (1982) are less likely to subscribe to the naïve theory of argument (Rancer and Infante 1985;Rancer et al 1992) and tend to be more skilled at argument (Infante 1981;Onyekwere et al 1991;Rancer and Infante 1985), producing a greater variety of rational strategies and using more counterarguments (Infante et al 1997;Kazoleas 1993). In addition, they are more likely to concern themselves with the actual issues and claims of an argument rather than the personal characteristics of the arguers (Hample 2005, p. 28).…”

Section: Lay Theories Of Argument and Trait Argumentativenessmentioning

confidence: 98%

Individual Differences in the Interpretation of Commitment in Argumentation

Ricco

Sierra

2010

Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study explored several dispositional factors associated with individual differences in lay adult's interpretation of when an arguer is, or is not, committed to a statement. College students were presented with several two-person arguments in which the proponent of a thesis conceded a key point in the last turn. Participants were then asked to indicate the extent to which that concession implied a change in the proponent's attitude toward any of the previous statements in the argument. Participants designated as 'liberal' used the concession to infer substantial change in commitment to earlier statements in the argument. A group designated as 'conservative' were reluctant to make any such inferences. A discriminant analysis indicated that variables assessing participants' attitudes toward argument as well as their cognitive and communication styles jointly predicted their liberal or conservative status. The discriminant function and follow-up group comparisons indicated that liberals were more likely than conservatives to engage in argument. This included a greater tendency to use argument as a source of knowledge. Liberals also employed a more sophisticated message design logic than conservatives on a communication task. The groups did not clearly differ with respect to participants' implicit theory of argument, though trends were present that merit attention in future research. Implications of these findings for future research on lay interpretations of commitment are discussed.

show abstract

Beliefs about arguing as predictors of trait argumentativeness: Implications for training in argument and conflict management

Cited by 59 publications

References 22 publications

Instructor Argumentativeness and Socio-Communicative Style and Student Discipline: Using Physical Education Students’ Class as an Illustration

Instructor Argumentativeness and Socio-Communicative Style and Student Discipline: Using Physical Education Students’ Class as an Illustration

College Students’ Use of Behavioral Alteration Techniques as a Function of Aggressive Communication

Individual Differences in the Interpretation of Commitment in Argumentation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About